Waterbury evening Democrat., 1887-12-28
STEPHEN J. MEANY, EDITOR.
"FALSE FACTS"

respect of our journalistic averments. We do not presume on infallibility in state ment or misunderstanding in opinion; our sources of information may not always be reliable in truth, or our arguments un- assailable in fact; and we should be, as we are, thankful for corrections given in good spirit and with honest intent Even when strong in the consciousness of right, and fixed in the assertion thereof, we regard the controversy as a compliment, because it affords proof that our announcements on public questions are not passed over unheedingly, and that our opinions are held as worth consideration by men of character and intellect. Of this last con- plexion is the following letter:
 Dear Sir: In your issue of the 22d, under the heading of Ireland and Rome, you say Its his torical fact that Pope had given over Ireland, body and soul, to the possession of Henry the 2d." Better have said historical fiction. That point has been refuted by eminent historians. Abbe MacGeoghegan pronounces it forgery-see page 46 to 257, History of Ireland. The facts after Pope Adrian was dead twelve years Henry of England produced document, the purport of which was that he, Henry, was empowered by the Pope to conquer Ireland. flimsy arrangement that would have no standing in common court of law. CELT.
 We know the writer and respect his mo- tives-"Kindly Irish of the Irish, neither Saxon nor Italian"-he is still, as a Catho- lie, jealous of the high position of the Popedom, and would not have it stated even by implication that Pope Adrian ", though an Englishman, would have under taken to hand over Ireland to the tender mercies of an English monarchy; and what these mercies consisted of were abundantly proved by the wholesale persecution of the ''mere Irish''-of the natives of the counties-outside, the Pale, over which Henry the Second and his adventurers 1orded it in some show of equal right and eqnal justice with his co-national usurpers. The records of these atrocities are too n11- merous for recital in a newspaper column. They do not, save in an indirect manner as to consequences, affect the issues raised by the "Celt"-whether or not it is his torical fact that Pope had handed over the dominion of Ireland, body and soul, to the English King. We are as jealous as our correspondent can be of the good name and fame of the Papacy; we would not have the tiara smirched by even the suspi- cion that he whom we regard as the legiti- mate successor of Peter would stoop to the denationalization of Ireland-the brightest gem in the crown of his sovereign rule flor any purposo-for English sentiment or personal consideration or protective al- liance with the Holy See. Still, if His Ho- iness Adriau " had so undertaken to give Henry possession of Ireland, who would say that Religion was not at the base of cession? England was then Catho- lie; its relations with Rome were of the most cordial kind; submission to the Holy See was the characteristic of the time in the nations of Europe; and the cession, if any there were-mind we qualify with the potential ''if"-might have been as pro- tectorate over simple people without sub jecting Adrian W to any of the blame wor- thiness of Henry's after prosecutions of the country.
 But this is not the point. "A Celt'' con- tends against any such cession having taken place; he disputes our statement that it is historical fact, and refers to Abbe Macgeoghegan's History of Ire land, pages 246 to 257 for refutation of the islander on the Pope's memory. But stop, friend "Celt." Do you not, yourself, sup ply proof of this historical fact? Unless the 'fact" had been in history there would not have been any need of refutation. You admit the fact of an existence of a bull or decree giving the possession, as produced eleven years after Pope Adrian's death, and this was historical fact; and the fact of such bull or decree having been pronounced forgery, but the more clearly establishes it's existence. All the differ .ence lies between the terms ''historical fact" and historical truth" and we are just as willing to recognize the difference and draw the distinction as the most devoted defender of Pope Adrian can be. We believe in the forgery for purpose: but this belief does not make the original statement less fact; we believe that the nation that has governed Ireland by fraud and force would not hesitate at forgery to give the color of right to it's usurpa- tions; and it was in this belief we express ed the opinion that England had relied on the historical fact, as giving ground o1 hope for another interference of the Papacy against Ireland. No one accuses Leo X of impropriety for that historica truth, as we'll as historical fact, that His Holiness in an access of confidence, be- gotten of the Kings defense of Catholic ism against the heresies of Luther, con ferred on Henry VIII, the title of ''De fender of the Faith" which title, by tht way, the monarchs of England have eve1 since feloniously retained. And how Henry defended the faith subsequently,, because the Pope would not sanctify by his bless ing the Kings immoral marriages, or an nulment of marriages, was exemplified ii persecution of the Catholics and in the wholesale demolition and misappropria tion of all the monasteries and convents il the land
 n..- c.;o,,1 ttCta1tD hoe misunderstood 11s